Lekh Ram @ Suneel Kumar vs State Of H.P

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking bail in case FIR No. 210 of 2018 dated 08.09.2018 registered in Police Station Sundernagar, under

Sections 363 and 376 IPC and Section 4 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘POCSO Act’). Status report stands

filed. Besides, petitioner has also filed copies of statements of prosecutrix and her mother recorded during the trial.

Main grounds seeking bail are that there is delay of six months in lodging the FIR and also that after alleged commission of offence by petitioner,

victim had attended the marriage of sister of petitioner as well as petitioner, about 2-3 months after the alleged date of offence and before 2-3 months

of lodging of FIR, but, at that time also, she did not make any complaint on that day also and after or before that and in her examination-in-chief in the

trial Court, victim has stated that at about 9 PM petitioner had taken her in his car from Nalwar fair towards Mahamaya temple and violated her

forcibly in the car, whereas, in cross-examination, she has stated that she remained in Mela ground on that day from 7 PM to 9.30 PM and thereafter,

she had stayed in the house of sister of petitioner.

In the status report, it is stated that on the basis of date of birth certificate of victim, her age, at the time of commission of offence, was about 16 years

and being a minor, she was not competent to exercise her discretion and further that she did not disclose the incident to anyone in her family and it

came into light when victim made a complaint of stomachache whereupon she was taken to hospital by mother, and on medical examination, she was

found pregnant and thereupon, matter was reported to Police Station Sadar Bilaspur and thereafter, referred to Police Station Sundernagar for

commission of offence in jurisdiction of that Police Station. It is also stated in status report that victim has delivered a child and on DNA profiling,

petitioner has been found biological father of the said child. It is also stated in status report that when after the incident, victim informed petitioner

about missing of mensuration, then petitioner had assured to marry her and thereafter, petitioner had also confirmed the pregnancy through test and

had again assured to marry her.

The allegation of violation of person of victim is duly corroborated by DNA profiling as petitioner has been found biological father of child delivered by

victim.

So far as delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, that is immaterial in present case as victim was minor at the time of commission of offence as well as

at the time of lodging the report she had not attained the age of discretion and FIR has been lodged, at the first instance, when commission of offence

came in the knowledge of the parents without any delay.

The delay in FIR, at the most, can be taken a consent of victim with respect to act committed by petitioner, but, on account of age of victim, consent is

immaterial.

So far as attending the marriage of sister of petitioner and that of petitioner in between, i.e. after commission of offence and before reporting the

matter to police, is concerned, it has been stated by victim in her cross examination that she had gone to attend the marriage of sister of accused and

she was not knowing that marriage of petitioner was also being solemnized on the very same day. Further, it is not a case where victim had disclosed

the commission of offence, but, it is a case where commission of offence has come in the light when she was found pregnant during medical checkup

and whereafter, during inquiry, she disclosed the incident and on verification on the basis of scientific evidence, her version was found to be true.

So far as contradictions in the statement of prosecutrix in examination-in-chief with respect to timings of staying in Mela ground and taking by accused

in his car and ravishing her, are concerned, that is to be taken into consideration by trial Court at the time of final conclusion of trial along with other

evidence on record.

At the time of considering this application for bail, I do not think that this Court should go into such minute assessment or evaluation of evidence.

Otherwise also, for the other material on record, I do not find that it is a fit case for enlarging the petitioner on bail at this stage.

In view of above discussion, application stands dismissed. Any observation made in this order shall not affect the merits of case in any manner and

will strictly confine for the disposal of this bail application filed.